Effect of Lateral Quasi-Static Load On Nonlinear Behaviour and Damage Indexes of Retrofitted RC Frame Model

ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BUILDING AND HOUSING) VOL. 10, NO.
5 (2009)
PAGES **-**
EFFECT OF LATERAL QUASI-STATIC LOAD ON NONLINEAR

BEHAVIOUR AND DAMAGE INDEXES OF RETROFITTED RC
FRAME MODEL
A. Vimuttasoongviriya*, N. Kwatra and M. Kumar

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar University, Patiala 147004, India
ABSTRACT
Existing reinforced concrete buildings in north India were built at times when seismic zones
were not recognized. These buildings need to monitor the damage and improve their load
carrying capacities for the purpose of seismic safety. This paper investigates the effect of
lateral load on the damage index of reinforced concrete frame model strengthened using
FRP sheets. Stiffness damage index and combined damage parameters approach were used.
Change in modal parameters methods were investigated with the help of impact hammer
excitation test. Finally, finite element method was used for modelling, nonlinear analysis
and results processing of the specimen.
Keywords: Damage index, retrofitted RC frame model, FRP sheet, nonlinear FE method
1. INTRODUCTION
In north India, existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings were constructed at time when
seismic zones were not recognized. Therefore, they have inadequate reinforcement detailing
which not results in deficient lateral load resistance. For the purpose of assuring seismic
safety, it is necessary to detect the damaged state. Kanwar et.al [1] found that non-ductile
RC moment resisting frames result in the need of retrofitting to increase the load resistance
capacities. There are various methods of strengthening the damaged structures. The use of
steel plate jacket and ferro-cement jacket are disruptive to the operation of the facility, labor
intensive and time consuming. The Fiber Reinforcement Polymer (FRP) is one popular
strengthening technique because FRP with epoxy have received considerable attention due
to its high strength, light weight, quick and easy manageability on-site and high resistance
against corrosion. This advance material has been successfully used to increase bending and
shear capacity of flexural elements [2,3]. The retrofitted columns using FRP sheets have
shown to prevent its brittle shear failure and also significantly improved their displacement
ductility and energy dissipation capacity [4]. The use of FRP systems have also found to be
an effective method for upgrading deficient RC connections [5].
*
Email address of the corresponding author: atiwat.vimut@gmail.com (A. Vimuttasoongviriya)
564 A. Vimuttasoongviriya, N. Kwatra and M. Kumar
For the purpose of structural damage assessment, it is necessary to monitor the structures
for location and extent of damage. Damage index is a quantity that is used for estimating the
damage status. This index depends on different specific damage parameters such as
deformation, structural stiffness, energy dissipation and dynamic properties of structure. The
well known combined damage index method is proposed by Park and Ang [6]. This index is
calculated as a linear combination of maximum displacement response and total hysteretic
energy dissipation under cyclic load. Powell and Allahabadi [7] introduced a deformation
based damage index in terms of displacement or ductility. Kanvar et al. [8] suggested the
method of stiffness damage assessment wherein the damage indicator is based on changes in
the stiffness. Damage detection by calculating the change in modal parameters has been
widely applied in damage alarming in health monitoring systems of highway bridges [9].
Dipasquale and Cakmak [10] presented damage index based on the change ratio of
frequency. This method considers structural fundamental natural frequencies before and
after damaged. Rodriguez and Barroso [11] and Wang et al. [12] proposed stiffness-mass
ratios damage theory. This damage index is based on stiffness-mass ratio in form of modal
parameters. The Modal flexibility damage index method is the well known one [13]. The
principle of this method is on the basis of the comparison of the flexibility matrices obtained
from two sets of mode shapes.
Response of whole building subjected to external load is a problem which is important to
understand and there is little point in performing analysis without testing. This paper intends
to investigate both damage indexes and effects on retrofitted RC frame model under quasi-
static loads. Effect of FRP wraps on RC elements has been reported. The first part involves
determination of load-deformation relationships. Change in stiffness, displacement ductility
and energy dissipation have been investigated. Some of the damage indexes have been
selected to indicate the damage for both nonlinear static and dynamic damage parameters
approach. Subsequently, the ATENA-3D finite element program has been used for
modelling, nonlinear analysis and results processing of the specimen. Three-dimensional
finite element (FE) model is developed to replicate the experimental RC frame before and
after FRP strengthening. Modeling methodology and nonlinear analysis approach in
ATENA-3D are presented.
2. DAMAGE INDEX METHODS
In structural damage detection, a quantity of damage index (DI) is used to monitor the
damage status of structure. This value is equal to zero when there is no damage and is equal
to one when total collapse occurs. There are various parameters of physical responses to
formulate damage index of structure. These damage parameters can be classified as
deformation, change in stiffness, energy dissipation and changes in dynamical parameters
[14]. A damage index can involve a combination of one or more damage variables in its
calculation. For classification from difference viewpoints, the local damage index indicates
the damage of structural elements or a part of structure and the global damage index
considers the damage of the whole structure. Some of more significant damage indexes were
studied and presented in this paper.
EFFECT OF LATERAL QUASI-STATIC LOAD ON NONLINEAR... 565
2.1 Damage index based on deformation, energy dissipation and change in stiffness
2.1.1 Park and Ang damage index
Park and Ang [6] have formulated a well known damage index to estimate the level of
damage in structures. This damage index contains the damage cause by the maximum
deformation and the damage due to dissipated energy subjected to cyclic loading. Both
components of damage are linearly combined:
δ max β
δ u Py ∫
DI PA = + d Eh (1)
δu
where δ max is the maximum experienced deformation, δ u is the ultimate deformation

under monotonic loading, P y is yield strength of the structure which can be calculated
using nonlinear finite element analysis, ∫dE h is the hysteretic energy absorbed by the
structural element during the response history and β is a model constant parameter. They
have suggested the relationship between damage index and various damage states as
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Relation between damage index and various damage states [6].
Damage State Damage Index, DI State of Building
No Damage 0.0 No Damage
Slight Damage 0.0-0.1 No Damage
Minor Damage 0.1-0.25 Minor Damage
Moderate Damage 0.25-0.4 Repairable
Severe Damage 0.4-1.0 Beyond Repair
Collapse > 1.0 Loss of Building
2.1.2 Stiffness damage index method

Kanwar et al [8] proposed stiffness damage index method that uses an indicator based on the
relationship between the material stiffness properties of the undamaged and the damaged
member of the structure. According to this method severity of damage is expressed as the
fractional change in stiffness of an element:
k j − k *j 1
DI k = = 1− (2)
kj νj
where ν j is stiffness ratio, k j and k *j are the initial stiffness and damage stiffness of the jth
member. The asterisk (*) denotes the damage state.
2.2 Damage index base on change in dynamic characteristics

The change in dynamic characteristics of structure such as resonance frequency and mode
shape is widely used to calculate the damage of structure because damage always
accompanies the reduction of stiffness as well as modal frequency. This approach calls
modal parameters damage index method. This method has been widely applied in damage
alarming of highway bridge [9]. Damage in different locations and components actually
leads to different frequency changes in various modes. In this paper, the change in dynamic
characteristics of structure was investigated with the help of impact hammer excitation test.
The Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) analyzer was used to analyze and recorded dynamical
data of damaged structure. The damage index definitions of change in dynamic
characteristics are presented as follows.
2.2.1 Dipasquale and Cakmak damage index

Dipasquale and Cakmak [14] defined the modal plastic softening index for the one-
dimensional case, where the fundamental eigen frequency is considered. This damage index
is given by
ω *2
DI Dip = 1− 2 (3)
ω
where ω and ω * are the fundamental eigen frequency and damage frequency parameter,
respectively. In this paper, natural frequencies of structure had been measured from
experimental test in form of frequency response function (FRF) plot. This plot gave FRF
magnitude corresponding to resonance frequency of each mode.
2.2.2 Stiffness-mass ratios method

Rodriguez and Barroso, [11] and Wang et al. [12] presented the story damage index is based
on stiffness-mass ratios method in form of structural modal parameters. Considering multi-
degree of freedom (MDOF) system, the mass at each floor is lumped together, given by ml.
Similarly, the lateral stiffness of the lth story from 1 to n is given by kl. The equation of
motion of the structure under excitation force P(t) can be written as
&&(t ) + C x& (t ) + Kx(t ) = P(t )

Mx (4)
where M, C and K are the system mass, damping and stiffness matrices. x(t) is vector of the
floor displacement relative to the vector of excitation force P(t). From the matrix eigenvalue
problem, whose solution gives the natural frequencies and mode shape of a system, we have:
[K − λ M ]Φ = 0 (5)
where λ is the eigenvalue, and Φ is the mode shape corresponding to λ . The associated
natural frequency, ω is given by the square root of λ .

Substituting the extracted eigenvalue, λ j in form of ω 2j and the mode shape, Φ j of the
jth modal frequency into Eq. (4), the following system of linear equations can be obtained:
(k + k − ω
1 2
2
j m1 ) φ1 j − k2 φ2 j = 0
− k φ + (k + k
2 1j 2 3 − ω 2j m2 ) φ2 j − k3 φ3 j = 0
M = M
(6)
− kl φl −1, j + ( kl + kl +1 − ω ml ) φl j − kl +1 φl +1, j
2
j = 0
M = M
− kn φn −1, j + ( kn − ω 2j mn ) φn j = 0
Solving equation (6), a general expression of the lth story stiffness can be obtain as
n mi φi j
kl = ω 2j ∑ for j = 1, 2,K , n (7)
i =1 Δφl j
⎧⎪φl j − φ( l −1) j , for l = 2,3,..., n

Δφl j = ⎨ (8)
⎪⎩φl j for l = 1
Defining the damage of a structure as the reduction percentage of story stiffness before
and after damage, and assuming that the floor mass does not change due to the damage. This
damage index of each story can be expressed as
*
k / ml
DI SMR = 1− l (9)
kl / ml
For the uniform floor mass distribution and substituting the story stiffness from Eq. (7)
and Eq. (8) into Eq. (9), represented as damage index can be written as
φij*n
ω j *2 ∑
i =1 Δφlj
*
DI SMR = 1− n φ
(10)
ω j 2 ∑ ij
i =1 Δφlj
The value of this damage index can be obtained based on one set of modal parameters.
2.2.3 Modal flexibility damage index method

Ko et. al, [13] and Pandey and Biswas, [15] suggested modal flexibility damage index
method. They found that cracks in structure leads to an increase in structural flexibility. The
principle of modal flexibility damage index method is based on the comparison of flexibility
matrices obtained from two sets of experimental fundamental frequency and mode shape.
The method is applicable if the mode shapes are mass normalized to unity which implies
that the estimation of structural mass is required. The damage index for the lth story using
modal flexibility is defined as
F
∑φ
i =1
2
li /ωi2
DI MFDI = 1 − l* = 1 − n
(11)
∑φ
Fl *2
li /ω*2
i
i =1
where Fl and Fl * are the diagonal terms at coordinate l of the modal flexibility matrix of
undamaged and damaged structure.
3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
3.1 Material System

The concrete used in the RC frame model was grade M20 (20 MPa). The longitudinal steel
reinforcements were deformed bars and steel quantity was provided as per provisions of IS-
456. The steel bars exhibited yield strength of 415 MPa and a Young’s modulus of 200 GPa.
The glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) was used. It had a tensile strength of 3.4 GPa,
elastic modulus of 63 GPa and density of 2.6 g/cm3. The thickness of GFRP sheet used is
0.34 mm. Table 2 presents the details of the materials.
Table 2. The details of the materials.
Compressive strength of concrete 20 MPa
Diameter Yield Ultimate

Tensile strength of
10 mm 475.68 MPa 586.60 MPa
steel bars (MPa)
8 mm 516.65 MPa 628.91 MPa
Mechanical properties of FRP laminate
Fibre Thickness Density Tensile E

GFRP 0.34 mm 2.6 g/cm3 3.4 GPa 63 GPa
Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the model structure. All dimensions in millimeters
3.2 Specimen detail and testing procedure

A three story non-ductile RC moment resisting frame model was constructed in the
laboratory. This frame built without beam-column joint transverse reinforcement bars. Each
story was identical in most of the geometrical and mechanical aspects. The schematic
drawing of the model is presented in Figure 1. The frame model consisted of three slabs
2000 mm x 2000 mm x 50 mm. Each column was equally sized with a rectangular cross
section of 100 mm x 100 mm (reinforced with four 8 mm diameter bars) with a floor-to-
floor height of 950 mm. All the beams were equally sized rectangular with a cross section of
100 mm x 150 mm (reinforced with two 10 mm diameter bars on the tension and
compression faces). All columns and beams were provided with 6 mm diameter stirrups at
100mm centre-to-centre spacing. Each column was cast integrally with 150mm x 200mm x
400mm stub foundation. The stub was in turn bolted firmly on the strong floor. Each floor
was equipped with one displacement dial gauge in the horizontal direction. A hydraulic jack
of 200 kN capacity was horizontally installed along the desired direction at top floor. Quasi-
static loads were applied at uniform pace rate to simulate structural damage. Applied load
stories for both original and retrofitted frame are shown in Figure 2. Experimental test set-up
is shown in Figure 3.
17.5 27
Control frame Retrofitted frame
24
15
21
12.5
18
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
10 15
7.5 12
9
5
6
2.5 3
0 0
0 58
Time 0 75
Time
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Applied load history: a) control frame and b) retrofitted frame.
Figure 3. Experimental test set-up.
3.3 Impact hammer excitation test

Impact hammer excitation test is a useful tool because it gives information of the health of
structure without destructing or affecting the facility when damage is hidden within the
structure behind strengthening material layer. Each floor of experimental frame model was
equipped with one accelerometer of 5kHz resonant frequency to measure vibration in
horizontal direction. The accelerometer was mounted with a thin coating of epoxy on clean
flat surface. Impact hammer of sensitivity 0.25mV/N with a hard rubber tip was used to
excite the structure. Dynamic characteristic data of structure was automatically calculated
and recorded by FFT spectrum analyzer. The usual aim of vibration measurement is to
predict response given force in different damage status. The specific frequencies at which
resonance amplitudes occur are called the natural frequencies of the structure. These
frequencies and the corresponding distribution of amplitude are global properties. Structural
mode shapes are generalized from eigenvalue problem corresponding to natural frequencies.
3.4 Strengthening scheme

As earlier explained, the horizontal load was applied to the top floor of the control frame
model till the desired damage state was reached. The damaged frame was then moved back
to its initial state. Loose concrete was removed and the surfaces were cleaned of dirt. All the
corners of damaged elements were beveled and rounded to a radius of 10 mm. The cracks
were filled with epoxy layer of MBrace primer and surface was smoothed by MBrace
concessive. Application of FRP wrap provided in two layers on to the damaged structure as
shown in Figure 4. The first layer was provided with fiber oriented along the beam or
column axes, to increase their flexural strength capacity. The columns and beams were
confined at each edge zones by wrapping the other layer in the transverse direction as well.
The schematic drawing of retrofitted frame is shown in Figure 5.
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Application of FRP wrap: a) flexural layers and b) confinement layers
Figure 5. Schematic drawing of the retrofitted frame. All dimensions in millimeters

4. NONLINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
In complicate analytical process of retrofitted RC structure with FRP sheets, simplified

analysis tools cannot provide complete and accurate prediction. Finite element method is a
numerical technique that it always uses to solve these difficulties. Many researchers are
employed this technique to predict structural behavior and crack pattern of RC members
[16]. Two-dimensional FE retrofitted beam models are studied by Supaviriyakit, et al. [17]
and three-dimensional strengthened bridge models are investigated by Kachlakev, et al [18].
The ATENA nonlinear finite element program (ATENA-3D v4) was used in this study to
simulate the behaviour of the RC frame. An eight-node brick element was used to model the
concrete as shown in Figure 6. The element is capable of plastic deformation, cracking in
three orthogonal directions and crushing. A polyline element was used to model the steel
bars. Two nodes are required for this element. Each node has three degrees of freedom. The
steel for the FE models was assumed to be an elastic-perfectly plastic material, Poisson’s
ratio of 0.3.
(a) (b)
Figure 6. a) An eight node brick element model and b) a schematic of FRP composite model
A shell element with 20 nodes, quadratic 3D brick element, was used to model the FRP
composite. This element allows for different material layers with different orientations. FRP
composite is that consist of two constituents. The constituents are combined at a
macroscopic level and are not soluble in each other. One constituent is the reinforcement,
which is embedded in the second constituent, epoxy, [18]. The reinforcing material is in the
form of anisotropic materials of glass fibers, which are typically stiffer and stronger than the
epoxy. Nodes of FRP layered shell elements were connected to those of adjacent concrete
solid element in order to satisfy the perfect bond assumption. Figure 6 also shows a
schematic of FRP composites. An eight-node brick element was used to model steel plates at
the supports.
4.1 Material properties in ATENA nonlinear FE analysis

4.1.1 Equivalent uniaxial law
The nonlinear behavior of concrete in the biaxial stress state is described by the relationship
between effective stress σ cef and the equivalent uniaxial strain ε eq . The equivalent uniaxial
strain is produced by the stress of concrete σ ci with modulus Eci associated with the
direction i. The equivalent uniaxial strain is calculated as
σ ci
ε eq = (12)
Eci
Unloading is a linear function to the origin. The equivalent uniaxial stress-strain diagram
for concrete and an example of the unloading point U are shown in Figure 7. The relation
between effective stress and equivalent uniaxial strain is not unique and depends on a load
history.
Figure 7. Uniaxial stress-strain relationship for concrete
4.1.2 Tension before cracking

The behavior of concrete in tension without cracks is assumed linear elastic from initial state
to the effective tensile strength point. The tensile strength without cracks is calculated as
σ cef = Eo ε eq when 0 ≤ σ c ≤ ft ' ef (13)
where Eo is the initial elastic modulus of concrete, f t 'ef is the effective tensile strength
derived from the biaxial failure function.
4.1.3 Tension after cracking

Exponential crack opening law was used to model the concrete crack opening in this paper.
The function of crack opening is calculated as
σ ⎧⎪ ⎛ w ⎞3 ⎫⎪ ⎛ w⎞ w
= ⎨1 + ⎜ c1 ⎟ ⎬ exp ⎜ −c2 ⎟ − (1 + c13 ) exp ( −c2 ) (14)
f t ' ef ⎪⎩ ⎝ wc ⎠ ⎪⎭ ⎝ wc ⎠ wc
where w is the crack width, wc is the crack opening at the complete release of stress,
σ is the normal stress in the crack. Values of the constants are, c1 = 3, c2 = 6.93,
respectively.
4.1.4 Compression before peak stress

The nonlinear behaviour of compression is following Committee Euro International du
Beton model. The formula has been adopted for the ascending branch of the concrete stress-
strain law in compression. This formula enables wide range of curve forms, and is
appropriate for normal as well as high strength concrete.
qx − x 2
σ =fef ' ef
(15)
1 + ( q − 2) x
c c
ε Eo
x= and q= (16)
εc Ec
where f c ' ef is concrete effective compressive strength, x is normalized strain, q is shape

parameter, ε is strain, ε c is strain at the peak stress, Eo is initial elastic modulus and Ec is
secant elastic modulus at the peak stress.
4.1.5 Compression after peak stress

This paper was used fictitious compression plane model to simulate compression after peak
stress of concrete. The slope of the softening part of the stress-strain diagram is defined by
two points: a peak of the diagram at the maximal stress and a limit compressive strain ε d at
the zero stress. This strain is calculated from a plastic displacement wd and a band size Ld
according to the following expression:
wd
εd =εc + (17)
Ld
4.1.6 Compressive strength of cracked concrete

A reduction of the compressive strength after cracking in the direction parallel to the cracks
in ATENA is calculated as following:
f c'ef = rc f c′ (18)
rc = c + (1 − c ) e
− (128 ε u )
(19)
where rc is compressive reduction factor, f c′ is compressive strength of concrete and

constant c is 0.45, respectively.
4.1.7 Shear Stress in Cracked Concrete

The shear modulus is reduced with growing strain normal to the crack as shown in Figure 8
and this presents a reduction of the shear stiffness due to the crack opening.
G = rg Gc (20)
Ec
Gc = (21)
2 (1 +ν )
where rg is the shear retention factor, G is the reduced shear modulus, Gc is the initial
concrete shear modulus, Ec is the initial elastic modulus and ν is the Poisson's ratio.
Figure 8. Shear retention factor
4.2 Loading, boundary conditions and nonlinear solution

By taking advantage of the symmetry of the frame, a symmetrical half of the full frame was
used for modeling. The typical FE model for half of retrofitted frame is shown in Figure 9.
A one inch thick steel plate was added at the supporting and loading location in order to
avoid stress concentration problems. At a plane of symmetry, the displacement in the
direction perpendicular to the plane was held at zero. In nonlinear analysis, the loads applied
to a finite element model are divided into a series of load increments called load steps. The
ATENA program uses Newton-Raphson equilibrium iterations for updating the model
stiffness. The monitoring points were measured at the middle of each floor, where the
largest horizontal displacements can be expected.
(a) (b)
Figure 9. FE model of retrofitted frame using FRP: a) outside view and b) inside view
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Load-displacement behaviour and correlation of damage indexes

5.1.1 Control frame
The control frame model was constructed and tested under lateral quasi-static load. Loads
were applied at the middle of top floor. The changes of displacements with the increase of
the number of quasi-static loads are given in Figure 10. The initial diagonal cracks occurred
on the beam-column joints of the top floor at a load of 10kN, indicating that structural
elements of top floor were the most stressed. The system damage index based on Park and
Ang theory, DIPark and stiffness damage index method, DIk were 0.32 and 0.47, moderate
damage state. At a load of 12.5 kN, large cracks started to open and small cracks occurred
on connection joins of second floor. It indicated that the yield point was visible at a load
12.5kN, displacement of 31 mm from initial state, DIPark of 0.49, DIk of 0.57, severe damage
state. Ultimate damage state began at the load of 16.5 kN and with a displacement of 69 mm,
leading to DIPark of 0.95 and DIk of 0.76, respectively. The ductility index was nearly 2.22
and total energy dissipation was 567.57 kN-mm.
30 30
First floor Second floor
25 25
20 20
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
15 15
10 10
5 Retrofitted frame 5 Retrofitted frame

Control frame Control frame
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
30
Top floor
25
20
Load (kN)
15
10
5 Retrofitted frame
Control frame
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Displacement (mm)
(c)
Figure 10. Load-displacement plots: a) first floor, b) second floor and c) top floor.
1.0 1
0.9 Retro_frame 0.9 Retro_frame
Cont_frame Cont_frame
0.8 0.8
DI (Park and Ang)
0.7 0.7
DI (Stiffness)
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P/Pmax P/Pmax
(a) (b)
Figure 11. a) DI of Park and Ang plots and b) DI of change in stiffness plots
Figure 11 presents the correlation between applied load ratio and DIPark and DIk,
respectively. It shows that the value of DIPark of control frame has two difference trends,
while DIk seem to increase in linear. The general trend of DIPark is slightly changed because
of the cumulative effects of low deformation and energy dissipation. The high deformation
trend occurs after yield point. Based on high deformation trend, DIPark changes shape when
structure starts to lose their load carrying capacity. The value of DIk seem to increase in
linear manner because the initial stiffness ratio between undamaged and damaged structure
change slowly as compare to other damage parameters such as displacement ratio and
energy ratio. The summary of damage indexes and appearances of control frame are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Damage index of structural system and appearance of control frame.
P,kN P/Pmax DIk DIPark DIDip DISMR DIMFDI Appearance
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Un-deformed
5.0 0.30 0.18 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.04 Un-cracked
7.5 0.45 0.25 0.18 0.06 0.09 0.09 Minor cracking
10.0 0.61 0.47 0.32 0.12 0.16 0.16 Moderate cracking
12.5 0.76 0.57 0.49 0.16 0.21 0.21 Severe cracking
15.0 0.91 0.65 0.61 0.25 0.27 0.26 Spalling of concrete cover
16.5 1 0.76 0.95 0.34 0.36 0.34 Loss of shear capacity

5.1.2 Retrofitted frame

Test for the retrofitted frame was performed in the similar manner as that for the control
frame. At the final stage of the damaged control frame was grouting cracks by adhesive
epoxy and wrapped it with FRP sheets. The load versus displacement behaviour and the
change in damage indexes of retrofitted frame is shown in Figure 10 and 11 along with the
behaviour of the control frame. The yield state of the retrofitted frame was visible at a load
18kN, displacement of 24.8mm. The system damage index of DIPark and DIk were 0.24 and
0.54, indicating that the frame was on severe damage state. The moving sound of FRP sheets
started from the load of 18kN. The load displacement relation can be roughly considered to
be linear when the load is smaller than or equal to yield point. Ultimate damage state was at
the load of 25kN, displacement of 83 mm from initial state, total energy dissipation was
1039.68 kN-mm, DIPark was 0.93 and DIk was 0.69, respectively. There were breaking
sounds of fiber and epoxy layers from connection joints at ultimate state. After remove FRP
layers, it was observed that in addition to old cracks which opened up, new flexural cracks
also appeared at the connection joints and columns.
Results from experiment test shows that the use of FRP wrapped for structural
strengthening provides significant lateral load capacity increases approximately 151.5% as
compared to control frame. The FRP wrapped around the structural elements in this manner
are intended to provide external confinement and crushing of the concrete cover at larger
lateral displacements. According to the change of structural displacements, the ductile
behaviour of the retrofitted frame is largely restored after the FRP composite sheets are
engaged. The summary of damage indexes and appearances of retrofitted frame are
presented in Table 4. The health of non-ductile RC moment resisting structures of both
original and strengthened specimen seemed to become unsafe when DIPark and DIk increases
larger than 0.5 or structural stiffness reduces to more than 50% of initial state. DIPark and DIk
of strengthened frame reduce indicating better performance as compare to the control frame.
Table 4. Damage index of structural system and appearance of retrofitted frame.
P,kN P/Pmax DIk DIPark DIDip DISMR DIMFDI Appearance
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Un-deformed
3.0 0.12 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 Un-cracked
9.0 0.36 0.39 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.10 Un-cracked
15.0 0.60 0.49 0.19 0.12 0.17 0.18 Noise of fibre moving
18.0 0.72 0.54 0.24 0.14 0.22 0.23 Severe damage
21.0 0.84 0.60 0.33 0.17 0.28 0.29 Breaking noise of fibre
25.0 1 0.69 0.93 0.30 0.34 0.35 Loss of shear capacity

4m
4m
3m
3m
2m 2m
1m 1m
0 0
Real g
Real g
-1m
-1m
-2m
-2m
-3m
-3m
-4m
-4m 0 2 4 6 8
0 2 4 6 8 Time - s
Ti me - s
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Time history plot of control frame at top floor: a) initial state and b) final state
4 3.5 Control frame at second floor
Control frame at first floor
0 kN 0 kN
3.5 3
7.5kN 7.5kN
3 16.5kN 16.5kN
2.5
2.5
FRF (mg/N)
FRF (mg/N)
2
2
1.5
1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)
6
Control frame at top floor
0 kN
5 7.5kN
16.5kN
4
FRF (mg/N)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency (Hz)
(c)
Figure 13. FRF plots of control frame a) first floor, b) second floor and c) top floor.
5.2 Dynamical characteristic results and damage indexes based on modal parameters
5.2.1 Control frame
After applied each load steps, the impact hammer was used to excite the testing frame
model. The dynamic characteristics gave the records in FFT analyzer based on linear
analysis setup. These records include trigger hammer plot, time history plot and frequency
response function plot which give the amplitude of vibration along with frequency. The
analyzer was set up to make a free zoom measurement with a frequency range of 0 to 50 Hz.
In this frequency range there covered all three majority modes of this frame model. The time
history plots are shown in Figure 12 and comparison of FRF plots of control frame are
shown in Figure 13. At undamaged state the natural frequency at first, second and third
mode were 6.5Hz, 19Hz and 31.5Hz. At initial cracks of 10 kN, DIDip was 0.12, DISMR was
0.16 and DIMFDI was 0.16. At yield point of 12.5kN, the natural frequency at first, second
and third mode were 5.5Hz, 17Hz and 27.2Hz. DIDip was 0.16, DISMR and DIMFDI were 0.21,
severe damage state. At ultimate damage state, DIDip was 0.34, DISMR was 0.36 and DIMFDI
was 0.34, respectively. The frequencies at ultimate state of first, second and third mode were
5.2 Hz, 15.5Hz and 25.9 Hz. The average changed of corresponding resonance frequency
decreased approximately 18.73%.
The relation between applied loads and damage indexes based on modal parameters of
control frame are shown in Figure 16 and 17. In order to estimate the dynamic properties of
the frame under the damaged state, the measurements data after applied load are extracted to
represent the behaviour of structure. It can be seen that DIDip, DISMR and DIMFDI are small
which agree with the fact that no visible damage was reported at load less than yield point.
Meanwhile, some index values around 0.2 are obtained. In case of control frame, it is shown
that the value of damage indexes based on change in frequency and mode shape both DISMR
and DIMFDI are slightly larger than the modal plastic softening index, DIDip. In order to
estimate the modal parameter based index which compares only the natural frequency of
structure with damage or undamaged structure, DIDip is more sensitive in the case of severe
damage state or after large cracking. The results of damage indexes obtained show that the
damage of structures for both control and retrofitted frame are said to be of great concern,
when modal parameter damage indexes increase to larger than 0.20 or the structure
experienced severe damage after yield load.
8m
8m
6m 6m
4m 4m
2m 2m
0 0
Real g
Real g
-2m -2m
-4m -4m
-6m -6m
-8m -8m
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Ti me - s Ti me - s
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Time history plot of retrofitted frame at top floor: a) initial state and b) final state
6 7
Retrofitted frame at first floor Retrofitted frame at second floor
0kN 0kN
5 12kN 6 12kN
25kN 25kN
5
4
FRF (mg/N)
FRF (mg/N)
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)
9 Retrofitted frame at top floor
0kN
8
12kN
7 25kN
6
FRF (mg/N)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency (Hz)
(c)
Figure 15. FRF plots of retrofitted frame: a) first floor, b) second floor and c) top floor
0.4 0.4
DI (Dipasquale and Cakmak)
Retro_frame
DI (Stiffness-mass ratio)
Retro_frame
Cont_frame Cont_frame
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P/Pmax
P/Pmax
(a) (b)
Figure 16. a) DI of Dipasquale and Cakmak plots and b) DI of Stiffness-mass ratio plots.
0.4
Retro_frame
Cont_frame
0.3
DI (MFDI)
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P/Pmax
Figure 17. DI of Modal flexibility damage method plots.

From Figure 14 and 15, at initial state the natural frequency at first, second and third mode
were 6.7Hz, 20.7Hz and 34.0Hz, respectively. At yield point, the frequencies at first, second
and third mode were 6.1Hz, 19.3Hz and 32Hz respectively. The yield damage state of the
strengthened frame was visible at a load 18kN, DIDip of 0.14, DISMR of 0.22 and DIMFDI of
0.23, severe damage state. At ultimate damage state, the frequencies at first, second and
third mode were 5.5Hz, 17.2Hz and 29Hz respectively. The damage index of DIDip was 0.30,
DISMR was 0.34 and DIMFDI was 0.35. The average changed of corresponding resonance
frequency decreased approximately 16.51%. The time history plots of retrofitted frame
indicate that the stiffness of the damaged control frame is regained significantly by wrapping
FRP jacket but it is not able to bridge the cracks fully.
The relation between load and the damage indexes of retrofitted frame are shown in
Figure 16 and 17 along with the control frame and details are presented in Table 4. It is
clearly shown that the value of DISMR and DIMFDI are larger than DIDip. Meanwhile, the index
of stiffness-mass ratio and modal flexibility damage method are more accurate and more
reliable to estimate structural damage than the modal plastic softening damage index. These
resuls prove that, damage indexes based on modal parameters of retrofitted frame below the
curves of control frame indicating better performance. Moreover, both damage indexes
based on deformation and change in stiffness show a much acceptable accuracy correlation
with modal parameters damage indexes in general. Although damage index based on change
in modal parameters work when damage reaches severe stage but this method with the help
of impact hammer test is a useful technique to monitor health of structure without
destructing when damage is hidden within the structure behind strengthening material
layers.
(a) (b)
Figure 18. Failure mode at final state of control frame: a) experimental test and b) FE model
5.3 Failure mechanism
5.3.1 Control frame
Experimental failure modes at final state of control frame at each floor are shown in Figure
18. At yield load, first diagonal cracks started at connection joints of top floor. These
opening cracks increased when load was increasing. The second and third diagonal cracks
occurred at beam-column connections of second and first floor respectively. It indicated that
first plastic hinges were started at top floor and the other hinges were formed at second and
first floor respectively. The structure suddenly lost their load carrying capacity when cracks
crossed from tension surface though compression surface of structural cross section
elements. At final state, both diagonal and flexural cracks were occurred on structural
elements of each floor, indicating that the failure mode of control frame was combined
between shear mode and flexural mode. Only flexural failure mode was observed at column
near stub foundation. The lateral load carrying capacity of control frame was insufficient
due to non-ductile reinforcement detailing, which included no beam-column joints
transverse reinforcement. Therefore, the top and bottom bars moved in the opposite direction
under combined forces. These forces were balanced by bond stress developed between
concrete and steel bars. In such circumstances, the plastic hinges were formed by debonded
bars and connection joints lost their capacity to carry load.

Debonding of FRP sheets were a failure mechanism for the retrofitted frame. After the yield
load, the boned of flexural FRP layers delaminated along the interface between the concrete and
FRP sheet. The delamination always started at the corner of beam-column connection in tension
zone. The first cracks with their moving sound were initiated at connection of top floor and
other cracks were formed at second floor and first floor respectively. After initial debonded FRP
sheet formed, the retrofitted structure was stating to lose their load carrying capacity. The FRP
sheets of confinement layer suddenly delaminated at ultimate load with their breaking sound.
Small cracks were occurred on FRP layers at final state and huge cracks occurred inside existing
RC elements behind strengthening layers. The typical failure of retrofitted frame is shown in
Figure 19. Again, the primary failure mechanism was debonding of the FRP sheets. It occurred
at the base of the huge cracks in tension zone of the damaged RC elements.
(a) (b)
Figure 19. Failure mode of retrofitted frame: a) experimental test and b) FE model
5.4 Results of FE method and comparative analysis
Developed analytical models were validated by comparing the load-displacement results
with experimental data. For accuracy results, the stiffness damage index needs to be scale
for each damaged element. The parameters used in this index depend on the cross section of
the element and in order to use the original parameters for elements with different properties
as compared to the experimental elements. This index is modified on the basis of the
degradation of elastic modulus and applied to FE model [19]. Figure 20 shows the backbone
load-displacement plots from the FE analysis agree well with the experimental results. The
model plots were stiffer than that from experimental results. The yield load for the FE
analysis of control frame was 13 kN, which was higher than the load of 12.5kN from the
experimental results by 4%. Lastly, the ultimate load of 16 kN from model was lower than
the ultimate load of 16.5 kN from the experimental data by 3%. Similar to the control frame,
the yield load for the model of strengthened frame was 20 kN, which was higher than the
actual frame of 18 kN by 11.11%. The ultimate load for the model was 26kN, which was
higher than the ultimate load of 25 kN for the actual frame by 4%. The crack patterns at final
state from FE models corresponded well with the observed failure mode of experimental
control frame and retrofitted frame after removed FRP sheets.
30
Top floor
25
20
Load (kN)
15
10
Exp_cont_frame
ATENA_cont_frame
5
Exp_retro_frame
ATENA_retro_frame
0
0 20 40 60 80
Displacement (mm)
Figure 20. Back bone load-displacement plot between experimental results and FE models.
6. CONCLUSION
Based on the performed research investigation, the following main conclusions can be
drawn:
1) Experimental results approve that the use of FRP wrapped for structural strengthening
provides increased significant lateral load capacity. The ductile behaviour of the
strengthened frame is largely restored after the FRP composite sheets are engaged.
2) The health of RC structures of both original and strengthened specimen seemed to
become unsafe when DIPark and DIk increases larger than 0.5 or dynamical damage indexes
increase larger than 0.2. In other hand, the damaged structures are unsafe when structural
stiffness reduces to more than 50% of initial state.
3) The damage indexes of strengthened frame reduce indicating better performance as
compare to the control frame. Damage indexes based on deformation and change in stiffness
show a much acceptable accuracy correlation with dynamical damage indexes in general.
4) Although the stiffness of the damaged RC structure is regained significantly by
wrapping FRP jacket but it is not able to bridge the cracks fully. The failure of the
strengthened specimen is due to breaking up of the bond between FRP layer and concrete.
5) The analytical results and crack patterns from FE method agree well with the
experimental results.
REFERENCES
1. Kanwar V, Kwatra N, Aggarwal P, Gambir ML. Vibration monitoring of a RCC

building model, Proceedings of National Conference on Technology for Disaster
Mitigation, Hamirpur, India, 2006, pp. 277-285.
2. Li A, Assih J, Delmas Y. Shear strengthening of RC beams with externally bonded
CFRP sheets, Structural Engineering, No. 4, 127(2001) 374-80.
3. Ghobarah A, Elmandoohgalal K. Seismic rehabilitation of short rectangular RC
columns, Earthquake Engineering, No. 1, 8(2004) 45-68.
4. Memon MS, Sheikh SA. Seismic resistance of square concrete columns retrofitted with
glass-fiber reinforced polymer, ACI Structural Journal, No. 5, 102(2005) 774-83.
5. Mukherjee A, Joshi M. FRPC reinforced concrete beam-column joints under cyclic
excitation, Composite Structures, 70(2005) 185-99.
6. Park YJ, Ang A H-S. Seismic damage analysis of RC buildings, Structural Engineering
ASCE, Vol. ST4, 111(1985) 740-57.
7. Powell GH, Allahabadi R. Seismic damage prediction by deterministic methods:
Concept and Procedure, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 16(1987)
719-34.
8. Kanwar V, Kwatra N, Aggarwal P. Damage detection for framed RCC buildings using
ANN modelling, Damage Mechanics, No. 4, 16(2007) 457-72.
9. Samali B, Li J, Crews KI, Al-dawod M. Load Rating of impaired bridges using a
dynamic method, Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, special issue: loading
on structure, 2007, pp. 66-75.
10. Dipasquale E, Cakmak AS. Seismic damage assessment using linear models. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, No. 9, 4(1990) 194-215.
11. Rodriguez R, Barroso LR. Stiffness-mass ratios method for baseline determination and
damage assessment of a benchmark structure, Proceedings of the American control
conference anchorage, AK, USA, 2002, pp. 2469-2474.
12. Wang JF, Lin CC, Yen SM. Story damage index of seismically-excited buildings based
on modal parameters, 18th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
Technology, Beijing, China, 2005, pp. 3278-3289.
13. Ko JM, Sun ZG, Ni YQ. Multi-stage identification scheme for detecting damage in
cable stayed Kap Shui Mun bridge, Engineering Structures, 24(2002) 857-68.
14. Estekanchi H, Arjomandi K. Comparison of damage indexes in nonlinear time history
analysis of steel moment frames, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, No. 6, 8(2007) 629-
46.
15. Pandey AK, Biswas M. Damage detection in structure using changes in flexibility,
Sound and Vibration, No. 1, 169(1994) 3-17.
16. Perez JJ, Zhao L, O’Riordan-Adjah CA. Finite element evaluation of the effects of
lateral anchorage strips on the behaviour of CFRP-strengthened RC beams, Proceedings
of the international symposium on bond behaviour of FRP in structures, Chen and Teng,
International institute for FRP in construction, 2005, pp. 303-308.
17. Supaviriyakit T, Pornpongsaroj P, Pinmanmas A. Finite element analysis of FRP-
strengthened RC beams, Songklanakarin Journal of science and technology, No. 4,
26(2004) 497-507.
18. Kachlakev D, Miller T, Yim S. Finite element modeling of reinforced concrete
structures strengthened with FRP laminates. Final report-SPR 316, Oregon department
of transportation and Federal highway administration, 2001.
19. Lee U, Shin J. A frequency response function-based structural damage identification
method, Computers and Structures, 80(2002) 117-32.

Effect of Lateral Quasi-Static Load On Nonlinear Behaviour and Damage Indexes of Retrofitted RC Frame Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Lateral Quasi-Static Load On Nonlinear Behaviour and Damage Indexes of Retrofitted RC Frame Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BUILDING AND HOUSING) VOL. 10, NO.

EFFECT OF LATERAL QUASI-STATIC LOAD ON NONLINEAR

A. Vimuttasoongviriya*, N. Kwatra and M. Kumar

2. DAMAGE INDEX METHODS

where δ max is the maximum experienced deformation, δ u is the ultimate deformation

Damage State Damage Index, DI State of Building

No Damage 0.0 No Damage

Slight Damage 0.0-0.1 No Damage

Minor Damage 0.1-0.25 Minor Damage

Moderate Damage 0.25-0.4 Repairable

Severe Damage 0.4-1.0 Beyond Repair

Collapse > 1.0 Loss of Building

2.1.2 Stiffness damage index method

2.2 Damage index base on change in dynamic characteristics

2.2.1 Dipasquale and Cakmak damage index

2.2.2 Stiffness-mass ratios method

&&(t ) + C x& (t ) + Kx(t ) = P(t )

natural frequency, ω is given by the square root of λ .

⎧⎪φl j − φ( l −1) j , for l = 2,3,..., n

2.2.3 Modal flexibility damage index method

3.1 Material System

Table 2. The details of the materials.

Compressive strength of concrete 20 MPa

Diameter Yield Ultimate

Mechanical properties of FRP laminate

Fibre Thickness Density Tensile E

GFRP 0.34 mm 2.6 g/cm3 3.4 GPa 63 GPa

Figure 1. Schematic drawing of the model structure. All dimensions in millimeters

3.2 Specimen detail and testing procedure

Figure 3. Experimental test set-up.

3.3 Impact hammer excitation test

3.4 Strengthening scheme

Figure 5. Schematic drawing of the retrofitted frame. All dimensions in millimeters

In complicate analytical process of retrofitted RC structure with FRP sheets, simplified

4.1 Material properties in ATENA nonlinear FE analysis

Figure 7. Uniaxial stress-strain relationship for concrete

4.1.2 Tension before cracking

σ cef = Eo ε eq when 0 ≤ σ c ≤ ft ' ef (13)

4.1.3 Tension after cracking

The function of crack opening is calculated as

4.1.4 Compression before peak stress

where f c ' ef is concrete effective compressive strength, x is normalized strain, q is shape

4.1.5 Compression after peak stress

4.1.6 Compressive strength of cracked concrete

where rc is compressive reduction factor, f c′ is compressive strength of concrete and

4.1.7 Shear Stress in Cracked Concrete

Figure 8. Shear retention factor

4.2 Loading, boundary conditions and nonlinear solution

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Load-displacement behaviour and correlation of damage indexes

5 Retrofitted frame 5 Retrofitted frame

Table 3. Damage index of structural system and appearance of control frame.

P,kN P/Pmax DIk DIPark DIDip DISMR DIMFDI Appearance

5.0 0.30 0.18 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.04 Un-cracked

7.5 0.45 0.25 0.18 0.06 0.09 0.09 Minor cracking

10.0 0.61 0.47 0.32 0.12 0.16 0.16 Moderate cracking

12.5 0.76 0.57 0.49 0.16 0.21 0.21 Severe cracking

16.5 1 0.76 0.95 0.34 0.36 0.34 Loss of shear capacity

5.1.2 Retrofitted frame

Table 4. Damage index of structural system and appearance of retrofitted frame.

P,kN P/Pmax DIk DIPark DIDip DISMR DIMFDI Appearance

3.0 0.12 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 Un-cracked

9.0 0.36 0.39 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.10 Un-cracked